Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Complete List of Signing Statements made by Bush - A Must Read

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
Solly Mack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-24-06 07:48 PM
Original message
Complete List of Signing Statements made by Bush - A Must Read
I've listed a couple of examples of Bush's signing statements from 2006. Note the language used - especially in the second example - "unitary executive branch"

Bookmark the below link and you can check each week for any and every signing statement he makes.


Excerpts from 2006 Signing Statements

Statement on Signing the Department of Defense, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, and Pandemic Influenza Act, 2006
December 30, 2005



"The executive branch shall construe
these sections in a manner consistent
with the constitutional authority of the President."



Statement on Signing the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006


"The executive branch
shall implement these provisions in a manner consistent with the
President's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive
branch"


More at Search Signing Statements



In the search field type "signing statements"(w/o the quotes). They come in Text, PDF and Summary.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Trevelyan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-24-06 07:52 PM
Response to Original message
1. K&R thank you for this information -- Makes me sick and sad but I wish
the Dems had publicized this long before the blogsphere did.

another step in the bush crime family/bilderberg/carlyle group march to a police state-dictatorship.

Why can't we arrest bush now???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solly Mack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-24-06 07:54 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. I got sick reading his signing statements - and I wish we could
arrest him now. He deserves it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Patsy Stone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 10:20 AM
Response to Reply #3
28. Amen!
Great, but nauseating, post. Thanks! K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
timtom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 07:10 AM
Response to Reply #1
23. Ya know, I have wondered the same thing for the past
4 or 5 years.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zodiak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #1
34. I firmly believe
that we only know a fraction of what these fiends have done. If Congress as a whole and the entire blogosphere cannot keep track of their evil in real time, that should disturb us all because we honestly do not know the scope of damage to this country.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MuseRider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-24-06 07:54 PM
Response to Original message
2. K&R
Thanks Solly. Bookmarked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solly Mack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-24-06 07:55 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Hey Muse! I've been reading the damn things for over a hour
and they're very disturbing.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MuseRider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-24-06 08:31 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. I hope to get to them
this next week. They must be, we all know what he wants and we all know that he feels that he owns this country and that we are nothing but his subjects. I am certain they are disturbing.

Thank you so much for digging all of this up. I would guess this is common knowledge in Congress and that disturbs me even more. You would think it would have caused them to do something, anything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solly Mack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-24-06 08:36 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Until recently not even the Press was mentioning
the signing orders - and you would think after over 500 of them, they would have before now.

Yes, Congress should have been bringing these signing statements up. Especially considering Bush's attitude about checks and balances and things being easier if he was a dictator. Alito wrote a legal opinion back in '86 regarding signing statements and the unitary executive - his take on both should have been enough to forever bar him from the SCotUS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MuseRider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-24-06 08:46 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. Exactly right about Alito
It is unconscionable that we did not stop or at least filibuster that nomination on the unitary executive fact alone but in addition to the wording and the hubris of these signing statements it is simply tragic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mom cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 05:19 PM
Response to Reply #9
40. If the Dems who woted against Alito when it did not matter, had voted
against cloture, Alito would have not have been confirmed. It is unconcionable that these "representatives of the people" would have sold us out so badly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-24-06 08:06 PM
Response to Original message
5. When and how does this maniac get shut down?
Has he ever heard of checks and balances? Perhaps impeachment?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solly Mack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-24-06 08:08 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Got me on that one (when/how he gets shut down)
But he doesn't care about checks and balances - obviously... and he doesn't fear impeachment - it would seem
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ptolle Donating Member (423 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #5
37. 22nd amendment
I'd like to hope that if it comes to that the murcan people would not stand for any abrogation of the 22nd amendment, but, I'm not sure I'd put it past these imperialists to try.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tom_paine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-24-06 08:36 PM
Response to Original message
8. K & R -- Disgusting, but entirely in character of a Tyrant & Dictator
Which is exactly what Bush is.

Translation of all of the signing statements I'm going to do whatever I want, you Filthy Little Nobodies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solly Mack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-24-06 08:40 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Yep - it's a big FU by Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-24-06 10:32 PM
Response to Original message
12. WTF "unitary executive branch" ? I thought we had a constitution
not a monarchy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sydnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-24-06 11:03 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. He sure has peppered almost every law passed with that
phrase. GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solly Mack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #12
32. "President" is the new King, I guess - according to Bush
unitary executive is like saying divine rights
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
me b zola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 12:12 AM
Response to Original message
14. The maddman has declared himself king
:grr: I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK!!!!! :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solly Mack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 05:52 AM
Response to Reply #14
21. And has been doing since 2001
slowly but surely disregarding and redefinng the law to suit his aims.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
timtom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 07:22 AM
Response to Reply #21
24. I just want to take this moment to make a personal statement.
Ever since man/boy sealed the Presidential Files, I have officially determined that he is a non-entity. If he were to stand in front of me with a gun, I would act as if there were no one there. And, if he shot me at that point, I swear I wouldn't care. I REFUSE to acknowledge ANY authority to which he may lay claim. I consider the US to be in a state of anarchy and illegal occupation.

"Signing Documents?" Bah. They concern me as much as a grocery list he may have generated. In fact, I am now going to compose my own "signing document". This will be a good exercise for me. If anyone is interested in seeing it once it is composed, let me know, and I will post it.

Nathan Hale
Lover of the America
that may only have existed in my dreams,
but certainly doesn't exist now
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solly Mack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 07:38 AM
Response to Reply #24
25. When you finish it, please post it.
I happen to be of the mind that I don't have to adhere to a "social contract" that the government has defaulted on and the government has defaulted.

America is laboring under an illegal occupation, I agree.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 12:24 AM
Response to Original message
15. There's an interesting essay about these signing statements on FindLaw
Edited on Sat Mar-25-06 12:29 AM by TahitiNut
<...snip...>

President Bush has used presidential signing statements more than any previous president. From President Monroe's administration (1817-25) to the Carter administration (1977-81), the executive branch issued a total of 75 signing statements to protect presidential prerogatives. From Reagan's administration through Clinton's, the total number of signing statements ever issued, by all presidents, rose to a total 322.

In striking contrast to his predecessors, President Bush issued at least 435 signing statements in his first term alone. And, in these statements and in his executive orders, Bush used the term "unitary executive" 95 times. It is important, therefore, to understand what this doctrine means.

<...snip...>

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20060109_bergen.html


It's no surprise that the "unitary executive" is the afterbirth of the Federalist Society. :puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solly Mack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 05:47 AM
Response to Reply #15
20. Now we know what he really meant by "honor and integrity"
back to the Whitehouse. He's always saying one thing but it always means something else - as he defines it.

He's been expanding the power of the executive since he got there - refusing to release documents, disobeying orders to do so,inventing the "post 9-11" thinking talking point, and national security to justify every abuse.

Now it seems he's been disregarding the law from the get-go and it's not just torture he's been re-defining.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 12:37 AM
Response to Original message
16. in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President.
Should read"


"in a manner consistent with our interpretation of the constitutional authority of the President."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solly Mack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 06:05 AM
Response to Reply #16
22. He uses "how I construe" a whole lot in many of the
signing orders.

Bush hasn't just been re-defining torture to suit his aims - he's re-defined the entire executive and has eliminated congressional checks and balances with most of his signing orders.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #22
30. I am sending a letter to the editor that brings up
these issues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WiseButAngrySara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 02:05 AM
Response to Original message
17. K&R. This is depressing. Why hasn't this been observed or
discussed before? "I serve at the pleasure of the President"...that pat response that gags me each time I hear it, as it is obvously not spontaneous. B* serves at the pleasure of us, or he's supposed to as an elected official (of course that doesn't apply to him either, Scotus selection and Diebold) unless he changes the very nature of the Presidency. It's actions like these that make me doubt B*'s stupidity at times.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solly Mack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 05:42 AM
Response to Reply #17
19. That's what gets me - Bush has been pushing the "unitary executive"
Edited on Sat Mar-25-06 05:51 AM by Solly Mack
well before Alito's nomination, but it really wasn't until Alito's nomination that attention was paid to this neo-con interpretation of the executive.

He's been expanding the powers of the office President since the beginning. Not releasing documents and constantly claiming executive privilege - from Cheney's energy task force and on up to his favorite , "post-9/11 thinking", to justify the President ignoring certain laws.

I knew that...

but to know he's been undermining law after law with this thinking since the very beginning?.....this is something that should have been blasted across the news and wasn't...

Congress should have objected long before Alito's nomination

I don't happen to think Bush is stupid. Ignorant and clueless about some things, yes...but stupid? No. He set out to do this and he's accomplishing it.

Remember the phrase, "restore honor and integrity" back to the Whitehouse?

Well, you know how Bush says one thing but it means another?

"Unitary executive" is Bush's definition of restoring "honesty and integrity" - elevating the executive above all other branches. He is re-defining the role and office of the executive just as he re-defined the word torture - and breaking laws to do it.

What we are seeing now, more fully exposed, has always been his goal.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 04:12 AM
Response to Original message
18. The Dumbshit Who Would Be King. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
enough Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 08:55 AM
Response to Original message
26. k&r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueEyedSon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 08:56 AM
Response to Original message
27. Enough already. Censure, Impeach. Congress needs to riterate its
status as the lawmaking arm of the US govt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dave123williams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 10:57 AM
Response to Original message
29. It's funny; the Constitution doesn't say a thing about 'unitary executive'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #29
33. Despite what they say, the fact that each executive dept has an OIG
Office of Inspector General belies the fact that wrongdoing in any fictitious 'unitary' executive is impossible.

Ideologically, promoting the selling and growing of tobacco (for example) with USDA subsidies contradicts the unitary executive's other department of Health and Human Services who subsidize programs doing the exact opposite.

A DoD OIG would therefore ignore investigating bogus WMDs while a State Dept OIG (if he/she were honest with themselves) would be investigating as we speak and going where the Constitution requires, not following White House talkingpoints or DOJ legal justifications for same.

Joseph Wilson will be avenged.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ArmchairMeme Donating Member (390 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 01:09 PM
Response to Original message
31. Ugh!
Now it more and more clear why it was that he couldn't walk the streets like a regular president. He knew that he was so unpopular that someone would try something. He never talks to anyone who has a differing opinion of him because he knows there are many, many, many people who disagree with him and would like an opportunity to say or do something about what he is doing to America.

I continue to think that the truth will out and it will bring about a reversal of the negative karma that he has brought to our country and the world.

At least it happens in my dreams. He and his are brought down by their own actions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FogerRox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 03:07 PM
Response to Original message
35. Knr Great post
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 03:52 PM
Response to Original message
36. Kicked and recommended.
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sunnystarr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 04:28 PM
Response to Original message
38. Compare what Bush has done to Clinton
Edited on Sat Mar-25-06 04:28 PM by sunnystarr
I was curious since a while back I heard on Hannity's radio show that Bush's signing statements weren't a big deal and not new since Clinton used signing statements all the time. So thank you for posting that link so that I could look that up and compare. By random I selected 1997 and then selected a military appropriations bill. Every one of Clinton's signing statements are similar. God how I hate, deplore, and detest the RW media propaganda.


Statement on Signing the Military
Construction Appropriations Act,
1998
September 30, 1997

I have today signed into law H.R. 2016,
the ‘‘Military Construction Appropriations
Act, 1998,’’ which provides funding for military
construction and family housing programs
of the Department of Defense.
The Act funds the vast majority of my request
for military construction projects, the
military family housing program, other quality-
of-life projects for our military personnel
and their families, and the base closure and
realignment program.
I am concerned, however, that the Congress
has chosen to add funds for projects
that the Department has not identified as priorities.
I urge the Congress to complete action on
the remaining FY 1998 appropriations bills
as quickly as possible, and to send them to
me in an acceptable form.
William J. Clinton
The White House,
September 30, 1997.
NOTE: H.R. 2016, approved September 30, was
assigned Public Law No. 105–45.


*edited for my usual typos
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solly Mack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #38
39. Bush has signed more signing statements than all past Presidents
combined. In addition,and the most disturbing, besides the language Bush uses - is the intent of his signing statements. His intent has been to remove the checks and balances built into the laws and expand the power of the executive, by placing the office of President outside the controls necessary for our government to function as it is supposed to to function.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
understandinglife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 07:18 PM
Response to Original message
41. Bookmarked. Thank you.
Be The Bu$h Opposition - 24/7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 01:41 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC